shadowfoxx

That did clear it up for me, thank you!

I'm genuinely not certain how your definition of consciousness is distinct and different from 'responds to stimuli'.

I don't think its necessarily to keep humans on top. I don't think my dog can fly an F-16 but I also think my dog is conscious.

I don't think its possible to be working on 'absolutely nothing'. I think you'll find that if you really explore this idea that you can almost always go further. For example. Do you clean your house? Maintenance is something. The status quo is something and it need to be maintained to exist. I think you recognize this because you admit that you're working on yourself.

The only time I think you could truly do nothing is when you've passed.

I would say I was in a similar place - Wake up, Go to work, come home, watch youtube, sleep, repeat; I had projects I was interested in but couldn't bring myself to do them. For me, part of the answer was changing my environment, the people I was with, the culture was to chill because you're exhausted from work. Another part was, like you're doing now, working on yourself. Another, specific part of working on myself was taking inventory of the things I 'valued'. Did I truly still value those things or were they things from my youth that I am clinging to? Do I value them because I authentically value them or is it because culturally they are valued? Am I applying those cultural valued to places that matter to me. For example: "Hard work". I do value hard work, but the places I was applying that value did not provide return on the investment. So now I apply 'hard work' elsewhere.

I think it is both necessary and good to do this from time to time. Good luck on this journey.

Yeah it seems to me like a human bias against ignorance. We have this notion that if people that don't know the knowledge that we know they must be dumb because, "everybody knows ____".

Kids are literally just the definition of inexperienced.

"There’s a lot of software being produced that just doesn’t care about its users, or that manipulates them, or that turns them into the product. And this isn’t limited to social media: as a user, I can’t even book a room, order food, or click on the Windows start button without popups trying to grab my attention;"

I recently interviewed at Netflix and during the design portion of the interview I was tasked with navigating to a UI, creating a user-persona, and making arguments for or against how well the interface delivered on my goals as a user. I chose Amazon and "Parent of a family shopping for groceries". Mostly because I have a lot to say about the interface personally and I felt this would be useful in the interview.

Now it used to be that when you clicked on the account section in the top right of the interface - the page would refresh and nothing would change. I found this infuriating because the dropdown was just a hover. Turns out the interface now takes you to a landing page with the same info as the hover.

HOWEVER. During the interview, that hover (The one for Account), also advertised products to me. I mentioned that this is causing friction for me as a user, that what I want is to view my account information but I am being bombarded with more irrelevant things to buy.

The interviewer - some lead of design within the company said - "Well, you have to remember that all of these decisions are tested to death and there is good likely good reason/research to back up that part of the UI". I wish I had the presence of mind to say that response betrays the exercise we were doing but I digress.

Biz > dev > user. Biz ≹ user.

If I was their partner I would read this as, "Oh, they understand that we have two different ways of communication and they are changing their own behavior instead of asking me to change mine so that we both end up saving time/money. This is what it looks like to be a good partner? Pointing out that your partner thinks differently from you is not the same thing as blaming them for something.

Could you explain, in your own words instead of putting the responsibility on me to interpret your meaning, how they are blaming their partner for the interaction?

  Location:                   USA

  Remote:                     Yes, please

  Willing to relocate:        No but occasional travel, OK

  Technologies:               React, Typescript, Next.js, PostgresSQL, Docker, Github (To name a few)

  Résumé/CV:                  Can email if interested:

  LinkedIn:                   https://www.linkedin.com/in/kendrickdrews/
          
  Email:                      drewskenny@gmail.com

I'm someone who's quite interested in learning to play music - took some classes in highschool (but my focus was the visual arts which is why I struggle to find time amongst my other hobbies, I'll get there)

I always wished that sheet music was rotated 90 degrees. The more I hear from musicians the more I think maybe that's not good... but there is something to be said about, "with experience you'll just get it, it become natural" especially with a system that's been around for hundreds of years...

In this thread you've said both that people won't do 'unsavory' work, like cleaning, for social accolades but also that the people who do volunteer to clean up public spaces do it for social accolades (Virtue signaling)

I'm not going to pretend to know the motivations of all people who clean up beaches but it is unlikely that the overwhelming majority do it simply for clout farming. People are more than one thing. Regardless they are just one example of so many examples of good public work that people do right now - in a culture that I would argue does not meaningfully incentivize this behavior. I don't think whether or not people do it when they are alone is relevant here. We're literally arguing about whether people would in a different culture, not the selfish one we currently occupy. I think a society like that is not only possible but necessary.

But anyway, last thing I'll say is that I get the sense that your view is more informed by a pessimism about "how people are" - and that how they are is concrete and unchanging - rather than about data or thinking more holistically.

I think the people who volunteer to clean up their community beach, river, stream, city street would disagree with you. There's enough pushback to your current position that I can even think of memes that talk about this very thing

Also, this appeal to nature really doesn't hold up to scrutiny either. We do things that "go against our evolutionary nature" all the time. For example: None of us spread our shit anywhere. Or how, due to current culture and city design, people largely live isolated physically from larger communities. The list goes on.

That's an upper-limit for social relationships not signing on to things conceptually - for example: Taxes. We know that our taxes go towards making things for all ~350 million of us (USA) or however populous your country and we're capable of recognizing that as a good thing. Or, at the very least, a necessary evil?

but you need to be very careful how you define community. A community that is defined by who is included nearly always cannot escape an implicit declaration of who is excluded, and a community which includes everybody is no community at all. When you have an in-group and an out-group, you sow the early seeds of conflict and discord.

Okay but, as far as I can read this its just universally true? Respectfully, you're not making the case for it being impossible and you're pointing to something that literally exists now. If it's hard, cool, I'm not afraid of difficult challenges, I honestly believe most people aren't afraid either.

No, this is the basis for the tribe, with similar concerns about intertribal conflict.

That's fine, a bigger circle of people is exactly why I believe that your premise I was originally responding to doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I think in the present day people are able to operate in several different tribes that are not in serious struggle with one another and there's nothing concrete to point to (as far as I know) that there's an upper limit?

In another comment you mention that "No one would choose to be a Janitor" and I think that is rooted in "At the snap of the finger we'd be socialist and that would cause chaos" kind of thinking. "Being a Janitor" is only a "bad thing" due to our present culture. I certainly don't think it's less important that someone is a Janitor as opposed to a Lawyer or something - The reason people "Don't" want to be Janitors right now is less to do with 'the job' and whatever stereotypes you have in your head but because it's one of the jobs that doesn't pay enough for someone to live comfortably. I don't think its a huge leap to believe that if you could live comfortably and with dignity as a Janitor, people would absolutely do it.

Shoot, people volunteer to be *fire fighters*...

I mean, in America? Right now? Maybe not... okay definitely not but I ask the same thing about Higher-taxes for the betterment of all. No way it would happen here - the people wouldn't accept it but it does work elsewhere and the people there are, by the ways we currently measure, way happier than we are.

I think a culture that teaches the value of community and does a great deal to impart on the youth that we have the nice, comfortable lives (with arguably more freedom) is because we share those burdens and its part of our civic duty... that its patriotic to do so. I could see that working out.

Plus how crazy is it to think that cultures and societies did operate similarly in the past, pre-industrialization? Isn't this the basis for the family unit?

  Location:                   USA

  Remote:                     Yes, please

  Willing to relocate:        No but occasional travel, OK

  Technologies:               React, Typescript, Next.js, PostgresSQL, Docker, Github (To name a few)

  Résumé/CV:                  Can email if interested:

                              
  linkedIn        https://www.linkedin.com/in/kendrickdrews/
  Email:                      drewskenny@gmail.com

In my career as a software dev I've found one thing to be true - Every Paradigm I ingest that opens new windows of opportunity are great at first pass and as I learn more the more narrow the scope they can be applied. (This is kinda true in life, too. Like when people say, "Its econ 101 or bio 101." etc. What seems like a statement about 'common' knowledge is actually an indication of how shallow your knowledge is!)

Specifically related to this topic is a talk by Dan Abramov called, "The Wet Codebase" - He says it better than I can sum up and has visual aids : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17KCHwOwgms

Other have pointed out code that is similar in function vs similar by coincidence and I think that thought alone is worth chewing on.

I think the Front-End is split into multiple different parts that work together but I sometimes think about them separately. A) The organization of the individual parts. B) The 'look' of those parts. C) Technical stuff like Accessibility, parent-child coupling, etc.

Learning A can be pretty quick for some basics, learning B is a rabbit hole that can take ages to 'learn'. The good news is most of what you need is for something 'competent' is in A

To answer your points below:

1) Front load your design. The equivalent to Pseudocode for the Front-End is to wireframe. Consider all of your pieces, how they should be grouped, and why. There are some common patterns you'll run into in everyday life. If you find those patterns, draw them on a piece of paper (or your editor of choice, you could do it with mspaint if you wanna). Then you can write out your HTML/CSS. I typically work back and forth. All the HTML, then I CSS, then more html if needed, then more css. etc.

2) An effective Front-End is one which gets the user where they want to go with as little friction *as possible*. Emphasis on as-possible because, just like asap, it doesn't mean "yesterday" it means, "Please prioritize this task above other tasks". An effective FE has a clear idea of purpose and wastes no time achieving those goals. Also, see patterns above. This might not be useful yet but one pattern is to look at the shape of what you're trying to display and allow that to dictate the FE. As an example - almost all documentation sites have a left (or right, or floating) vertical navigation, it takes up maybe 10% of screen width, and then the content of that documentation fill the rest of the width with some amount of padding on the left and right. Consider flipping this pattern. Make the Nav horizontal and the documentation full width to get a feel for why most documentation looks the way it does.

2.1) Some terms to search, "Elements of Art and Principles of Design". I recommend everyone look them up - there are ~20 ideas that reference how we go about making something aesthetic.( Art - color, form, line, shape, space, texture, and value ; Design contrast, balance, emphasis, proportion, hierarchy, repetition, rhythm, pattern, white space, movement, variety, and unity )

3) Uh this is a bit more complicated than I can do in a single comment but maybe we can share discord names if you like the cut of my jib so far.

I strongly disagree with the usage of context-switch here. If you're writing HTML + CSS or writing HTML + Tailwind classes that's the same context. Maybe my experience with CSS is partly to blame - I can see a design and have both the HTML and CSS in my noodle at the same time because they are coupled. The phrase will lose all meaning if we're comfortable with, "Anytime I look at a different file" as a clean definition for context switching. So If I ctrl+click to read a function that I've imported or I'm checking out the type definitions for a parameter - that's context switching??

To me, this would be like saying writing a function in a React component and then writing the HTML for that same component is context switching. It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The tasks are related and in a similar headspace - even if they aren't connected 1:1.

This is true and its only a recent change. When I compare it to similar sites that do the same, remote rocketship is the best IMO.

I personally think its worth 10 dollars for what it is. A barebones and clean aggregate job site. The other free sites have too much engagement or don't get the amount of listings RR does.

Thanks for the arrow, I'll definitely add Otta.com to my rounds. If you're not familiar you could also try Remote Rocketship

Well its a mix of things. I struggle with "live coding", y'know fight,flight, or freeze? I freeze up. So on that front I think I need to do two things:

1. Slow down and ask for a few minutes to collect myself. "I'm not in this context, do you mind if I have a minute to organize my thoughts". And then do a little "whiteboard" in my notebook or something. Some people might say to verbalize your thinking process and I agree but there shouldn't be anything wrong with taking a few minutes. (I mean, this doesn't even necessarily test for how I'd do on the job because I'm at least competent at coding)

2. Practice more situations. Any time I struggle with a problem after the interview I make sure I understand that tech. Right now I'm studying up on class components and websockets. (Two technologies I either don't really see anymore: we use functional components on my latest projects or stuff you set and forget)

I think #2 is part of what people mean when they say that interviewing prepares you for the next one.

- Some places that I get far with I've literally reached out afterward and asked for pointers. One piece of feedback I've gotten is, "We didn't get a good sense of what drives you." which, that's fair. I think of software engineering as more of a technician => "I have the skills to solve your problems" and not so much, "My passion is building the front-end for X,Y,Z business" I mean, I'd obviously like to find work with meaning but I'm not driven by that meaning. I don't think we'd ask our plumber to show their passion for the work (Not that they can't have that) but instead we're more concerned with, "Are you competent?" - That's something I need to work on for sure.

- Lastly, I've learned that an interview is for both parties. The person interviewing me is also representative of the company. The last two interviews I had a bad feeling about the fit post interview and I think I should have reached out and rescinded my interest because our values didn't align.

Most of the time though, I check all the boxes and don't even make it to interview stage so its hard to really glean anything useful most of the time. Could it be a bad market? Is it because the only box I don't check is having a CS degree? (I have a bachelors but not in CS) Is it my experience is too varied? Who knows. Best I can do is to keep at it.

Its rough out here. I've got 8+ years of experience and I've worked a breadth of experience as well. I'm scouring the posts here on "Who's Hiring", I work applications on LinkedIn, Speak with some recruiters, and I utilize Remote Rocketship. My network of connections is a bit smaller than could be useful (this is my own fault.) but I have also reached out to people I personally know who could vouch for me. A number of those are still working at my last job.

Sent out upwards of 500 applications, 10, 20, maybe 30 interviews even fewer that have gone to the 'final rounds' and even some very close calls. No offers yet.

I'm also spending this time learning new tech that interests me and working on a portfolio site that is true to those interests. This is slow going but I don't let it get me down (if I can help it) because I help my partner garden, raise our dog, and work on my other hobbies as well.

  Location:                   USA, Michigan (EST, but other time zones are OK)
  Remote:                     Yes, please
  Willing to relocate:        No but occasional travel, OK
  Technologies:               React, Typescript, Next.js, PostgresSQL, Docker, Github (To name a few)
  Résumé/CV:                  Can email if interested: 
                              https://www.linkedin.com/in/kendrickdrews/

  Email:                      drewskenny@gmail.com

I'm currently working through some WebGPU Projects and learning THREE.JS. I'm more interested in Developer roles than Lead roles but I am interested in working with other members of the team and mentoring/learning.

My only problem with this logic is that you and I both know you aren't getting paid for the time you spend not at your job and that you don't spend all of your time in pursuit of work. I don't mean, "You don't get paid to brush your teeth" (But I am willing to bet you don't consider your hourly rate when you do an activity you are interested in or hanging out with your friends) but that you don't completely fill your day with money making activities. I think the logic here reframes the 'blame' off of you and onto something external.

But its perfectly okay to say that the benefits the previous poster mentioned aren't worth more to you than the convenience + quality of just buying a new pair of socks. Because the truth of it is that darning your own socks costs almost nothing.

Sure, while I'm skeptical I'm not going to act like there isn't some unknown secret sauce that bends a person's abilities in a direction. But as far as I know, there is no baby that has ever been known to pick up a paint brush and give us the Mona Lisa. I think when we start the "Talented" conversation with the premise being, "if they rolled different stats at birth, they wouldn't be capable of this ability" we're flattening a lifetime of not only focus on a craft (10k) but their home life, did they have community, did they have supportive people in their life, proper nutrition, socioeconomic status, the technology at the time (I mean, more skilled peoples exist today than have probably ever existed), the education they were able to receive, were they born standard, etc etc.

If talent was decided in a way where talking about 'something innate', as in we could go so far as to say... 30%? 40% 50% nature accounts for aptitude.. wouldn't we actually have reason for a caste system? Is it specific - This person is wired to code - what does that even mean? There are so many skills and subskills.

I'm sure it exists, its just funny/frustrating that the word is used to describe what appears to me as the minority factor instead of the majority.

I'm also not a much fan of 'creative' as a noun for much of the same reasons. I feel this way about how we commonly use 'talent' to mean - "They are magically gifted in ways that are innate", as if they rolled 18's in all their stats, and not "This person has achieved a level of skill that is remarkable."

  Location:                   USA
  Remote:                     Yes, please
  Willing to relocate:        No but occasional travel, OK
  Technologies:               React, Typescript, Next.js, PostgresSQL, Docker, Github (To name a few)
  Résumé/CV:                  Can email if interested: 
                              https://www.linkedin.com/in/kendrickdrews/
  Email:                      drewskenny@gmail.com

They are only irrelevant if the protests don't work, right?

I'm also more than welcome to just attempt to take over the existing subs, which is much more convenient for everyone involved.

Well, not everyone involved right? If I understand correctly, just the people who don't care about the people affected by the API cost increase.

I mean, you're more than welcome to create a subreddit and start rebuilding with the members of the community who think as you do. I'd also like to point out that inconvenience is a desired feature of protest, not a bug.

Why is it other peoples responsibility to not inconvenience you?